Comments on: Interpreting the Catalyst: A Mass Effect Analysis, Part 3http://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/
Read the latest gaming news, get game downloads, mods, patches, and watch game videos at Game Front.Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:10:01 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1By: Genehttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-463966
GeneFri, 08 Aug 2014 09:50:04 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-463966Correct - second last paragraph:
"That organics are not superior to synthetics and esspecially that organics have no right to annihilate organic life even though they created it."
must read:
That organics are not superior to synthetics and esspecially that organics have no right to annihilate SYNTHETIC life even though they created it.Correct – second last paragraph:

“That organics are not superior to synthetics and esspecially that organics have no right to annihilate organic life even though they created it.”

must read:

That organics are not superior to synthetics and esspecially that organics have no right to annihilate SYNTHETIC life even though they created it.

]]>By: Genehttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-463965
GeneFri, 08 Aug 2014 09:45:53 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-463965Additional clarification:
It seems my stand on the AI are not 100% clear.
Mandate of the "Reaper AI": "...preserve life at all costs."
This results in a lot of consequences. First of all the "God-child" is the ultimate "friend" of organics in any regard. Unable to find a different solution to overcome the eternal conflict of man vs machine it preserved life by transforming it to synthetic life. It did so at times, where synthetics started to become a threat to organics - the time of "the harvest". Basically each Reaper is a nation (sum of all individuals) of previous organic life transformed into synthetic life.
Instead of letting time go on, which apparently (at least to the "God-childs" perception) leads to extinction of organics by synthetics it intervened at the right time to preserve organics by making them synthetics. In its own logic the God-child doesnt kill organics but merely transforms organics - therby preserving life (which is its mandate - to preserve life at all costs). To organics this is perceived as a "holocaust", as "killing". Also this obviously prevents further evolution and doesnt solve the problem as such.
As a matter of fact the AI perceives its "solution" as inadequate, but didnt come up with a solution on its own.
This becomes even worse, since the AI is not organic and thus does not fit to eg. control or synthesis. It would be a clear break of its commandment to pursue such a "solution". Only another entity can make this choice, an entity, which must be based on organic life. So for the time being the AI went on with the harvest, but modified it. Apparently to offer each cycle an increasingly chance of a "way out" by cooperation of the whole galaxy vs the Reapers - enabling that specific entity to grow and prosper. So basically the whole harvest cycle was centered around creation of an entity able to make all organics and synthetics cooperate. An entity, who considers both forms of life as equal.
Esspecially the "equal" point of synthetics and organics is of great importance since organics of previous cycles are preserved in the Reapers.
Back to the AI not able to take this role as in the options of "annihilation", "control" or synthesis. Annihilation results in the destruction of synthetic life, esspecially the Reapers, which are the transformed organics of previous cycles. Due to its mandate to preserve life at all costs, the AI has no option for this decision. Control is no long term option either, since the AI is synthetic and blocks evolution, which is part of organic life. On the last option "Synthesis" I am actually unsure on why the AI cant chose that option by itself. My strong guess is: all actions by the AI was always targeted at cooperation between synthetics and organics. As such synthesis is the minimal solution, whereas a cooperation would be the absolute maximum. And that cooperation or willingness of cooperation with the Reapers was not present before Shepards arrival.
So the baseline of that story is: the AI created the cycles to prepare for a cycle of a cooperative organic life basis, which is able to accept synthetics as equals - as life in a different form. It is about the creators (organics) of synthetic lifes accepting that they dont own life once they created it. That organics are not superior to synthetics and esspecially that organics have no right to annihilate organic life even though they created it.
A transformation of organic life to cooperative organic life. And thats all what Shepards journey was about. It was about making that transformation himself.
Thats why "control", giving up organic life, being the first to willingly become (out of his own free decision) a synthetic lifeform is the ultimate solution. It is the pinnacle of the AIs struggle over Millenia.Additional clarification:

It seems my stand on the AI are not 100% clear.

Mandate of the “Reaper AI”: “…preserve life at all costs.”

This results in a lot of consequences. First of all the “God-child” is the ultimate “friend” of organics in any regard. Unable to find a different solution to overcome the eternal conflict of man vs machine it preserved life by transforming it to synthetic life. It did so at times, where synthetics started to become a threat to organics – the time of “the harvest”. Basically each Reaper is a nation (sum of all individuals) of previous organic life transformed into synthetic life.

Instead of letting time go on, which apparently (at least to the “God-childs” perception) leads to extinction of organics by synthetics it intervened at the right time to preserve organics by making them synthetics. In its own logic the God-child doesnt kill organics but merely transforms organics – therby preserving life (which is its mandate – to preserve life at all costs). To organics this is perceived as a “holocaust”, as “killing”. Also this obviously prevents further evolution and doesnt solve the problem as such.

As a matter of fact the AI perceives its “solution” as inadequate, but didnt come up with a solution on its own.

This becomes even worse, since the AI is not organic and thus does not fit to eg. control or synthesis. It would be a clear break of its commandment to pursue such a “solution”. Only another entity can make this choice, an entity, which must be based on organic life. So for the time being the AI went on with the harvest, but modified it. Apparently to offer each cycle an increasingly chance of a “way out” by cooperation of the whole galaxy vs the Reapers – enabling that specific entity to grow and prosper. So basically the whole harvest cycle was centered around creation of an entity able to make all organics and synthetics cooperate. An entity, who considers both forms of life as equal.

Esspecially the “equal” point of synthetics and organics is of great importance since organics of previous cycles are preserved in the Reapers.

Back to the AI not able to take this role as in the options of “annihilation”, “control” or synthesis. Annihilation results in the destruction of synthetic life, esspecially the Reapers, which are the transformed organics of previous cycles. Due to its mandate to preserve life at all costs, the AI has no option for this decision. Control is no long term option either, since the AI is synthetic and blocks evolution, which is part of organic life. On the last option “Synthesis” I am actually unsure on why the AI cant chose that option by itself. My strong guess is: all actions by the AI was always targeted at cooperation between synthetics and organics. As such synthesis is the minimal solution, whereas a cooperation would be the absolute maximum. And that cooperation or willingness of cooperation with the Reapers was not present before Shepards arrival.

So the baseline of that story is: the AI created the cycles to prepare for a cycle of a cooperative organic life basis, which is able to accept synthetics as equals – as life in a different form. It is about the creators (organics) of synthetic lifes accepting that they dont own life once they created it. That organics are not superior to synthetics and esspecially that organics have no right to annihilate organic life even though they created it.

A transformation of organic life to cooperative organic life. And thats all what Shepards journey was about. It was about making that transformation himself.

Thats why “control”, giving up organic life, being the first to willingly become (out of his own free decision) a synthetic lifeform is the ultimate solution. It is the pinnacle of the AIs struggle over Millenia.

]]>By: Genehttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-463803
GeneThu, 07 Aug 2014 13:30:21 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-463803I actually had the time to read more from critics and therefore feel the need for more comments:
So far it seems either of three (four) scenarios apply:
1. Shepard is dreaming during the ending sequence. From here on anything is possible in regards to Mass Effect follow-ups. Also all critics to the end are void by this.
2. Shepard is indoctrinated during the end-sequence.
3. It all happens for "real" during the end-sequence.
(4.) A mix from the above, esspecially 2. and 3.
Let us stay with 4., focusing on a heavy mix of 2 with 3.
First the critics from other articles on why the end is bad (eg. http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/ ):
- Brevity - "identical endings": considering the implications of each choice, the endings are far from identical. I do understand it feels that way to some, but if one actually reads, it definitly is the exact opposite. It is the decision on life as it is in the future to any living being in the galaxy (destruction of all synthetic life including EDI or becoming "God" yourself or synthesis aka creating a completely new way of life for any intelligent being). Gimme a break, thats not identical. That argument by critics is simply void.
- Confusing/under-developed: Anderson first in the beam makes sense on any layer. Especially starting with the Extended Cut it is even logical. He isnt as much wounded as Shep, apparently came there first (Extended cut) even telling Shep about the surroundings he sees.
- Abrupt appearance of the Illusive Man: I have an issue, why someone would even point it out as illogical - since his first appearance it obviously is the single one thing the Illusive Man ever wanted. Being there. He dedicated all his resources to make it possible, he even got indoctrinated (thinking he can evade it, but nonetheless was) to be there. Its actually the only option he went to the catalyst, knowing what it is due to the Prothean VI. He even had more time at hand to get there, maybe even before the Citadel moved to Earth. Apart from that he is obviously indoctrinated - a part of the reaper "community" already. So he would even be welcome by the Reapers (in case they didnt even bring him there on purpose).
- "Ridicolous AI - boy" aka deus ex machina: I also fail to see, why someone would criticize that one. First of all the visual itself is not a deus ex machina - it is introduced during leaving Earth and always shown in Shep's dreams. Thats almost the exact opposite of a deus ex machina. Also Shep is prone to being indoctrinated anyways during ME3, most likely starting already with the beginning of ME2 (more about that later). Looking back, Shep's dreams are already a prequel to the ending. So ME3 is not about the end result, which those dreams also prove,... It is about the way to get there. Only to see the boy and eventually Shep's LI go down in a blaze of fire. The AI aka catalyst was a necessity from the start of ME1. Why? Because the reapers needed an origin. So there are only two questions left about the catalyst:
a) Why does the AI look like the boy when leaving Earth?
b) What is the AI? Its purpose? Motivation? Or in other words: what are the restrictions placed upon it by its creators (the Leviathans)?
The first is imho simple. Since Shep can be considered at being on the edge of being indoctrinated, the AI is able to know it - since its messing with his brain already. Its only questionable if the boy every existed as a normal human being or if it was a construct placed in Sheps brain from the very start of ME3 on by the catalyst. Another read would be the "black tentacles" of indoctrination in the end sequence with the Illusive Man - latest at that point the AI knew of the boy and its appearance as well as its significance to Shep (if the boy ever existed as a living being).
The second is imho easy too. The catalyst is an AI with an inherent purpose, a commandment it can not nullify: solve the problem of the inherent war synthetics and organics will face. In that regard the catalyst is not evil or good. It has only that single task: solve the problem. As such the catalyst isnt Sheps enemy - in case those wordings apply at all, the AI must be considered Sheps friend, since its task focuses only around the existence of organic beings (no matter its form, as long as the solution is lasting and doesnt lead to extinction).
Bottom line: the "ridicolous AI" intervened from the very beginning of ME3, maybe even starting with ME1. Something which makes sense since the catalyst is the combined knowledge of all reapers. So Shepard meets the entity who "pulled the strings" all the time, even watching his efforts. Partially even supporting him due to his achievements. Support? Of course since in all other cycles the Citadel was among the first attack points to take over. This time the attack was delayed (Prothean gate to Citadel, deactivating the signal), but thats even more reason for the reapers to head to the Citadel first. They didnt. So it was all about watching Shepards efforts giving him the time needed to prove "worthiness".
Addendum - Shepards indoctrination:
Remember the scars in ME2. Its been overlooked as "operational scars". Realize how these scars didnt make any real difference in ME2? Funnily those scars are at those places, where you can see Saren's electronics in ME1 and the Illusive Mans indoctrination in ME3. So Shepard was or is in the process of being indoctrinated all along. But: at which point does indoctrination result in an indoctrinated being? Kai Leng obviously is indoctrinated as pointed out by the Prothean VI. Either it took the Prothean VI so long to realize until Kai Lengs arrival or Shepard isnt indoctrinated when in the Tessia temple - but in the process of being.
Quote of critics:
"The Reaper’s whole purpose is to save Organics by killing them, and turning them into synthetics. So that Organics won’t make synthetics who will then kill organics."
Wait a sec: they are killed but turned into synthetics? So they were killed or transformed? Even critics have an issue to decide...
This argument of the ridicolous AI is void.
- "left with far questions an ending should have" - sorry that argument by critics is bs. Who decides how many open questions an ending should have? Breaking news: the author. Open questions about life and death, existance of synthetics,... are valid questions and exactly the type of questions which should never be answered until synthetics exist OR could be created.
Void argument
- "Mass Effect has long been held up as a shining example of a well-constructed, fully developed universe. Players are rightly unhappy to see it end as nothing but a series of forced choices justified by tautological platitudes"
Answer: so fully and completely developed that it leaves the player with essential questions. I fail to see platitudes in essential questions, which are actually even relevant to humanity in general in the short term future (10-50 years).
Plain stupid argument critics brought up here.
- "Lore Errors/Plot Holes" - that part is imho a shining example of ignorance:
Critics assume the explosion of a Mass relay leads to extinction derived from a previous plot where an explosion of a mass relay destroyed a solar system. Breaking news: the catalyst beam didnt make the mass relays explode. Those just broke but apparently didnt explode, which is actually even shown in the extended cut.
- "Inferred Holocaust": Figure I need a break of "made-up arguments". The only holocaust is the Renegade solution shown by the Paragorn Anderson. All "true" Paragorns perceive destruction of the reapers as necessary. The ending shows us that "not everything we perceive is the way it seems to be like". Meaning the obvious Paragorn solution (annihilation) results in a Holocaust of synthetics. Thats why annihilation is the wrong choice in any scenario. All other scenarios are far from a Holocaust.
Void argument.
- "Normady's escape" (I love that argument):
Here the Extended cut needs to be stressed again where Shepard orders the Normandy to depart. with the squad mates. As pointed out before, the "explosion" isnt an explosion. Instead a signal is sent via the mass relays, a signal strong enough to break those.
But hey? Why would Joker run from it with the Normandy? Because... EDI is the Normandy. And one way or the other Joker is in love with the Normandy, with EDI, his one and only love interest despite the fact EDI is synthetic. Joker doesnt run for the life of the crew. There is actually no need to and he probably is fully aware of that. He jets for EDI's very existance in utter dispair. EDI the single and only AI ship in the fleet. The only device prone to Shepards solution in case of annihilation. And to any outside spectator its obvious that Shep "would" choose the annihilation of Reapers - while being fully unaware of additional options.
Void argument.
- "Key Philosophical Themes Are Discarded":
Guess I need a break from writing ;). Shepard in case synthesis or control is chose fullfills exactly the key philosophical themes of the game. The player who believes in a "good annihilation" of the reapers is the issue here. Player arguing that way didnt understand, that the reapers are (1) alive - snthetics and (b) not guilty due to being a tool aka "fire", which in itself is neither good or evil. By voting for the destruction of the reapers, those players demand to be allowed to act like the Quarians with the Geth did: Ignorance, lack of tolerance, lack of acceptance of synthetic life.
Void argument.
And much more made up arguments.
Conclusion
Players criticizing the end as unfitting, wrong, displaced,... or just made up... Those players actually show a severe amount of ignorance and a lack of understanding of the underlying philosophical and ethical questions this game raises.
This game is a masterpiece in all regards. It is so immersive that the player is actually required to join Shepard on his journey. If the player doesnt, he fails (and starts to criticize everything on the internet).I actually had the time to read more from critics and therefore feel the need for more comments:

So far it seems either of three (four) scenarios apply:
1. Shepard is dreaming during the ending sequence. From here on anything is possible in regards to Mass Effect follow-ups. Also all critics to the end are void by this.
2. Shepard is indoctrinated during the end-sequence.
3. It all happens for “real” during the end-sequence.
(4.) A mix from the above, esspecially 2. and 3.

Let us stay with 4., focusing on a heavy mix of 2 with 3.

First the critics from other articles on why the end is bad (eg. http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/ ):

- Brevity – “identical endings”: considering the implications of each choice, the endings are far from identical. I do understand it feels that way to some, but if one actually reads, it definitly is the exact opposite. It is the decision on life as it is in the future to any living being in the galaxy (destruction of all synthetic life including EDI or becoming “God” yourself or synthesis aka creating a completely new way of life for any intelligent being). Gimme a break, thats not identical. That argument by critics is simply void.

- Confusing/under-developed: Anderson first in the beam makes sense on any layer. Especially starting with the Extended Cut it is even logical. He isnt as much wounded as Shep, apparently came there first (Extended cut) even telling Shep about the surroundings he sees.

- Abrupt appearance of the Illusive Man: I have an issue, why someone would even point it out as illogical – since his first appearance it obviously is the single one thing the Illusive Man ever wanted. Being there. He dedicated all his resources to make it possible, he even got indoctrinated (thinking he can evade it, but nonetheless was) to be there. Its actually the only option he went to the catalyst, knowing what it is due to the Prothean VI. He even had more time at hand to get there, maybe even before the Citadel moved to Earth. Apart from that he is obviously indoctrinated – a part of the reaper “community” already. So he would even be welcome by the Reapers (in case they didnt even bring him there on purpose).

- “Ridicolous AI – boy” aka deus ex machina: I also fail to see, why someone would criticize that one. First of all the visual itself is not a deus ex machina – it is introduced during leaving Earth and always shown in Shep’s dreams. Thats almost the exact opposite of a deus ex machina. Also Shep is prone to being indoctrinated anyways during ME3, most likely starting already with the beginning of ME2 (more about that later). Looking back, Shep’s dreams are already a prequel to the ending. So ME3 is not about the end result, which those dreams also prove,… It is about the way to get there. Only to see the boy and eventually Shep’s LI go down in a blaze of fire. The AI aka catalyst was a necessity from the start of ME1. Why? Because the reapers needed an origin. So there are only two questions left about the catalyst:
a) Why does the AI look like the boy when leaving Earth?
b) What is the AI? Its purpose? Motivation? Or in other words: what are the restrictions placed upon it by its creators (the Leviathans)?

The first is imho simple. Since Shep can be considered at being on the edge of being indoctrinated, the AI is able to know it – since its messing with his brain already. Its only questionable if the boy every existed as a normal human being or if it was a construct placed in Sheps brain from the very start of ME3 on by the catalyst. Another read would be the “black tentacles” of indoctrination in the end sequence with the Illusive Man – latest at that point the AI knew of the boy and its appearance as well as its significance to Shep (if the boy ever existed as a living being).

The second is imho easy too. The catalyst is an AI with an inherent purpose, a commandment it can not nullify: solve the problem of the inherent war synthetics and organics will face. In that regard the catalyst is not evil or good. It has only that single task: solve the problem. As such the catalyst isnt Sheps enemy – in case those wordings apply at all, the AI must be considered Sheps friend, since its task focuses only around the existence of organic beings (no matter its form, as long as the solution is lasting and doesnt lead to extinction).

Bottom line: the “ridicolous AI” intervened from the very beginning of ME3, maybe even starting with ME1. Something which makes sense since the catalyst is the combined knowledge of all reapers. So Shepard meets the entity who “pulled the strings” all the time, even watching his efforts. Partially even supporting him due to his achievements. Support? Of course since in all other cycles the Citadel was among the first attack points to take over. This time the attack was delayed (Prothean gate to Citadel, deactivating the signal), but thats even more reason for the reapers to head to the Citadel first. They didnt. So it was all about watching Shepards efforts giving him the time needed to prove “worthiness”.

Addendum – Shepards indoctrination:
Remember the scars in ME2. Its been overlooked as “operational scars”. Realize how these scars didnt make any real difference in ME2? Funnily those scars are at those places, where you can see Saren’s electronics in ME1 and the Illusive Mans indoctrination in ME3. So Shepard was or is in the process of being indoctrinated all along. But: at which point does indoctrination result in an indoctrinated being? Kai Leng obviously is indoctrinated as pointed out by the Prothean VI. Either it took the Prothean VI so long to realize until Kai Lengs arrival or Shepard isnt indoctrinated when in the Tessia temple – but in the process of being.

Quote of critics:
“The Reaper’s whole purpose is to save Organics by killing them, and turning them into synthetics. So that Organics won’t make synthetics who will then kill organics.”
Wait a sec: they are killed but turned into synthetics? So they were killed or transformed? Even critics have an issue to decide…

This argument of the ridicolous AI is void.

- “left with far questions an ending should have” – sorry that argument by critics is bs. Who decides how many open questions an ending should have? Breaking news: the author. Open questions about life and death, existance of synthetics,… are valid questions and exactly the type of questions which should never be answered until synthetics exist OR could be created.

Void argument

- “Mass Effect has long been held up as a shining example of a well-constructed, fully developed universe. Players are rightly unhappy to see it end as nothing but a series of forced choices justified by tautological platitudes”

Answer: so fully and completely developed that it leaves the player with essential questions. I fail to see platitudes in essential questions, which are actually even relevant to humanity in general in the short term future (10-50 years).

Plain stupid argument critics brought up here.

- “Lore Errors/Plot Holes” – that part is imho a shining example of ignorance:
Critics assume the explosion of a Mass relay leads to extinction derived from a previous plot where an explosion of a mass relay destroyed a solar system. Breaking news: the catalyst beam didnt make the mass relays explode. Those just broke but apparently didnt explode, which is actually even shown in the extended cut.

- “Inferred Holocaust”: Figure I need a break of “made-up arguments”. The only holocaust is the Renegade solution shown by the Paragorn Anderson. All “true” Paragorns perceive destruction of the reapers as necessary. The ending shows us that “not everything we perceive is the way it seems to be like”. Meaning the obvious Paragorn solution (annihilation) results in a Holocaust of synthetics. Thats why annihilation is the wrong choice in any scenario. All other scenarios are far from a Holocaust.

Void argument.

- “Normady’s escape” (I love that argument):
Here the Extended cut needs to be stressed again where Shepard orders the Normandy to depart. with the squad mates. As pointed out before, the “explosion” isnt an explosion. Instead a signal is sent via the mass relays, a signal strong enough to break those.

But hey? Why would Joker run from it with the Normandy? Because… EDI is the Normandy. And one way or the other Joker is in love with the Normandy, with EDI, his one and only love interest despite the fact EDI is synthetic. Joker doesnt run for the life of the crew. There is actually no need to and he probably is fully aware of that. He jets for EDI’s very existance in utter dispair. EDI the single and only AI ship in the fleet. The only device prone to Shepards solution in case of annihilation. And to any outside spectator its obvious that Shep “would” choose the annihilation of Reapers – while being fully unaware of additional options.

Void argument.

- “Key Philosophical Themes Are Discarded”:
Guess I need a break from writing . Shepard in case synthesis or control is chose fullfills exactly the key philosophical themes of the game. The player who believes in a “good annihilation” of the reapers is the issue here. Player arguing that way didnt understand, that the reapers are (1) alive – snthetics and (b) not guilty due to being a tool aka “fire”, which in itself is neither good or evil. By voting for the destruction of the reapers, those players demand to be allowed to act like the Quarians with the Geth did: Ignorance, lack of tolerance, lack of acceptance of synthetic life.

Void argument.

And much more made up arguments.

Conclusion
Players criticizing the end as unfitting, wrong, displaced,… or just made up… Those players actually show a severe amount of ignorance and a lack of understanding of the underlying philosophical and ethical questions this game raises.

This game is a masterpiece in all regards. It is so immersive that the player is actually required to join Shepard on his journey. If the player doesnt, he fails (and starts to criticize everything on the internet).

]]>By: Genehttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-463781
GeneThu, 07 Aug 2014 09:38:23 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-463781Your interpretation pretty much fits into my thinking after finishing the ME series a second time. Except you went a step further to analyze the catalyst words and interpret its underlying intentions. Good work.
Contrary to other comments I come to these conclusions:
1. this is intentional by Bioware or correctly phrased: by Drew Karpyshyn
2. this story was already pinned down to the catalyst starting with ME1
3. Contrary to another comment I actually do see a lot of similarities to Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question". In its own form the catalyst created "light".
By that I - for myself - come to another ideal ending:
To me the ideal ending is "Control". Annihilation is no option since with the destruction of synthetic life, the underlying problem is not solved. The catalyst even hinted at that: "it might also destroy you". As a consequence if a player chose annihilation the catalyst has three options:
(1) With Shepard dead, the problem stays unsolved for eternity and the support for technical advancement of new species by help of the reapers is gone. The catalyst is also destroyed since its existance has no longer a meaning. In this option "whatever happens in the next cycle happens." Leviathans probably take over and the status quo before the first cycle is reached. In the long run this might run into (3).
(2) Shepard is dead but the catalyst made sure to "survive" annihilation, enabling it to either go on with the cycles or create a new experiment or something completely different.
(3) Shepard choosing annihilation is a fail, thus proving this cycle did not achieve its goal. Shepard didnt come past the petty view of "organics must rule synthetics". As such Shepard is not better than the Quarians. Still this cycle came that far. As a result organics must be ruled by synthetics it truly is inevitable. So the time after the cycle starts and it is safe to assume synthetics will seize control and keep it for eternity. A solution still, simply because Shepard has proven that cooperation is impossible.
"Synthesis" isn't an option either. It takes away the whole principle of individual decision and freedom, which in return is an underlying concept to cooperation - a concept which Shepard pursued in any role. As such it is the minimal solution - a forced cooperation, basically enforcing synthesis.
"Control" at first glance doesn't fit either. It basically means enslaving organics and synthetics - making both live to the rule of one.
At second glance it is a perfect solution.
Shepard has proven to come past the petty view of organics ruling synthetics - he/she has proven his/her ability to accept synthetic lifeforms as equals. As a result Shepard can not be considered organic nor synthetic - Shepard is both (actually even physically since ME2). As such the whole ME-saga was a way of becoming "god". As a result Shepard has control, but is the only one able to overwatch the final solution for eternity. Why? Shepard was able to overcome "the need" to take revenge and destroy the Reapers. Shepard accepted the Reapers as "fire", which in itself is neither good nor evil - able to "embrace" the arch enemy and accept its nature - despite what has been done.
Based on all the above one might argue and vote for "synthesis" as the ultimate intended solution - even the Bioware points systems (mil strength, mil eff) hints at that. Likewise does the "happy ending" of the EDI/Joker love affair in the synthesis control scenario hint at synthesis as ideal. Yet I do believe Drew Karpyshyn didnt think that through. Enforcing synthesis of different lifeforms by the decision of one (even if Shepard is the "worthy one) - this decision in itself is an act of extreme violence.
Bottom line:
Ideal Bioware ending prepared since ME1 - synthesis.
Ideal moral ending - control (one giving up his/her very existance to solve an inevitable problem for eternity, which might lead to synthesis in the far future by a free decision of each individual, maybe guided by Shepard.)Your interpretation pretty much fits into my thinking after finishing the ME series a second time. Except you went a step further to analyze the catalyst words and interpret its underlying intentions. Good work.

Contrary to other comments I come to these conclusions:
1. this is intentional by Bioware or correctly phrased: by Drew Karpyshyn
2. this story was already pinned down to the catalyst starting with ME1
3. Contrary to another comment I actually do see a lot of similarities to Isaac Asimov’s “The Last Question”. In its own form the catalyst created “light”.

By that I – for myself – come to another ideal ending:
To me the ideal ending is “Control”. Annihilation is no option since with the destruction of synthetic life, the underlying problem is not solved. The catalyst even hinted at that: “it might also destroy you”. As a consequence if a player chose annihilation the catalyst has three options:

(1) With Shepard dead, the problem stays unsolved for eternity and the support for technical advancement of new species by help of the reapers is gone. The catalyst is also destroyed since its existance has no longer a meaning. In this option “whatever happens in the next cycle happens.” Leviathans probably take over and the status quo before the first cycle is reached. In the long run this might run into (3).
(2) Shepard is dead but the catalyst made sure to “survive” annihilation, enabling it to either go on with the cycles or create a new experiment or something completely different.
(3) Shepard choosing annihilation is a fail, thus proving this cycle did not achieve its goal. Shepard didnt come past the petty view of “organics must rule synthetics”. As such Shepard is not better than the Quarians. Still this cycle came that far. As a result organics must be ruled by synthetics it truly is inevitable. So the time after the cycle starts and it is safe to assume synthetics will seize control and keep it for eternity. A solution still, simply because Shepard has proven that cooperation is impossible.

“Synthesis” isn’t an option either. It takes away the whole principle of individual decision and freedom, which in return is an underlying concept to cooperation – a concept which Shepard pursued in any role. As such it is the minimal solution – a forced cooperation, basically enforcing synthesis.

“Control” at first glance doesn’t fit either. It basically means enslaving organics and synthetics – making both live to the rule of one.

At second glance it is a perfect solution.

Shepard has proven to come past the petty view of organics ruling synthetics – he/she has proven his/her ability to accept synthetic lifeforms as equals. As a result Shepard can not be considered organic nor synthetic – Shepard is both (actually even physically since ME2). As such the whole ME-saga was a way of becoming “god”. As a result Shepard has control, but is the only one able to overwatch the final solution for eternity. Why? Shepard was able to overcome “the need” to take revenge and destroy the Reapers. Shepard accepted the Reapers as “fire”, which in itself is neither good nor evil – able to “embrace” the arch enemy and accept its nature – despite what has been done.

Based on all the above one might argue and vote for “synthesis” as the ultimate intended solution – even the Bioware points systems (mil strength, mil eff) hints at that. Likewise does the “happy ending” of the EDI/Joker love affair in the synthesis control scenario hint at synthesis as ideal. Yet I do believe Drew Karpyshyn didnt think that through. Enforcing synthesis of different lifeforms by the decision of one (even if Shepard is the “worthy one) – this decision in itself is an act of extreme violence.

Bottom line:
Ideal Bioware ending prepared since ME1 – synthesis.
Ideal moral ending – control (one giving up his/her very existance to solve an inevitable problem for eternity, which might lead to synthesis in the far future by a free decision of each individual, maybe guided by Shepard.)

]]>By: Dunfalachhttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-438699
DunfalachTue, 15 Apr 2014 02:28:56 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-438699An interesting possible analysis. It's certainly reasonably consistent with much of what Bioware has done, though if that's the true intention then they didn't do a good job of communicating it and failed to properly consider how it took away the entire promise of the series by turning Shepard from world-changer into merely a cog in the Catalyst's machine...little more than a human die roll for which path the future would take. The idea that Shepard ultimately cannot escape the Catalyst's plan but is merely a part of it steals much from the story that leads up to it.
That said, focusing on your possible paths for the future, there is some possibility of them avoiding having to choose a canon pathway. To do so requires that they introduce a new primary threat in ME4 that's external to the events of Shepard's galaxy, allowing Shepard's choice to influence the state of our galaxy and the options available to the new player character in meeting the threat. It would be ambitious, since it might require not merely multiple versions of voice acting but perhaps even multiple versions of various worlds so that the ME3 ending could be imported and the character have access to only the ending-appropriate version of the various worlds. It would require a lot of planning to ensure that each LeadCharacter was able to ultimately gather whatever they needed to fight the final threat in any of the three ending zones, yet might obtain many of them from entirely different characters and events.
Having the new threat be external to the ME3 events would not necessarily require them to be external to the galaxy. Races such as the Yahg that had not attained space flight yet would be unaffected by the destroy ending since the Reapers left them alone, by the control ending since the Shepard-controlled Reapers might well continue to leave them alone, and explanation could well be made for such "primitive" civilizations to have been overlooked in some way by the synthesis ending. Though having the threat be external would certainly simplify matters by allowing much of the game to take place in another galaxy and ending-affected locations to be few and plot-specific.An interesting possible analysis. It’s certainly reasonably consistent with much of what Bioware has done, though if that’s the true intention then they didn’t do a good job of communicating it and failed to properly consider how it took away the entire promise of the series by turning Shepard from world-changer into merely a cog in the Catalyst’s machine…little more than a human die roll for which path the future would take. The idea that Shepard ultimately cannot escape the Catalyst’s plan but is merely a part of it steals much from the story that leads up to it.

That said, focusing on your possible paths for the future, there is some possibility of them avoiding having to choose a canon pathway. To do so requires that they introduce a new primary threat in ME4 that’s external to the events of Shepard’s galaxy, allowing Shepard’s choice to influence the state of our galaxy and the options available to the new player character in meeting the threat. It would be ambitious, since it might require not merely multiple versions of voice acting but perhaps even multiple versions of various worlds so that the ME3 ending could be imported and the character have access to only the ending-appropriate version of the various worlds. It would require a lot of planning to ensure that each LeadCharacter was able to ultimately gather whatever they needed to fight the final threat in any of the three ending zones, yet might obtain many of them from entirely different characters and events.

Having the new threat be external to the ME3 events would not necessarily require them to be external to the galaxy. Races such as the Yahg that had not attained space flight yet would be unaffected by the destroy ending since the Reapers left them alone, by the control ending since the Shepard-controlled Reapers might well continue to leave them alone, and explanation could well be made for such “primitive” civilizations to have been overlooked in some way by the synthesis ending. Though having the threat be external would certainly simplify matters by allowing much of the game to take place in another galaxy and ending-affected locations to be few and plot-specific.

]]>By: Berryhttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-426052
BerryMon, 27 Jan 2014 02:40:09 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-426052The one problem I have with taking in your three endings and them playing into the next game is how one ending has the scale of another one or so "galaxies" and the destroy ending simply takes place (though you didn't actually assume that but it would seem that way) in the milky way or at least on a smaller scale.
NOW all three are very clever and creative and I like them except for the middle because ....man I hate religion playing a "massive" role in something like that. I have no problem with religion, but that would be a turn off if it's incorporated heavily.The one problem I have with taking in your three endings and them playing into the next game is how one ending has the scale of another one or so “galaxies” and the destroy ending simply takes place (though you didn’t actually assume that but it would seem that way) in the milky way or at least on a smaller scale.

NOW all three are very clever and creative and I like them except for the middle because ….man I hate religion playing a “massive” role in something like that. I have no problem with religion, but that would be a turn off if it’s incorporated heavily.

]]>By: Tigerzahttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-425650
TigerzaFri, 24 Jan 2014 12:08:25 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-425650The whole unity thing doesn't make sense as on my play-through the Geth and Quarens kissed and made up but then the Catalyst gives me the option to commit genocide on possibly the biggest contributor in terms of military strength to this "unified" galaxy. So even if we all get alone and pass the test someones entire race gets wiped out, the Catalyst giving me this option doesn't seem reasonable if the whole plan was to bring peace and cooperation.The whole unity thing doesn’t make sense as on my play-through the Geth and Quarens kissed and made up but then the Catalyst gives me the option to commit genocide on possibly the biggest contributor in terms of military strength to this “unified” galaxy. So even if we all get alone and pass the test someones entire race gets wiped out, the Catalyst giving me this option doesn’t seem reasonable if the whole plan was to bring peace and cooperation.
]]>By: Kevinhttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-425601
KevinFri, 24 Jan 2014 02:10:40 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-425601Probably wouldn't happen, but what if, based on the control ending, Shepard becomes the enemy of the new order hundreds of years into the future? What if in a real sense he becomes just as Sovreign was, dismissive of humanity in playing a game they don't really understand? One tries to appeal to his humanity, to which Shepard responds he left that humanity long ago.
For D & D fans, basically Shepard becomes Kelemvor. Sure, he had the name Kelemvor as a human, but the god Kelemvor is completely different. He is cold, calculating, fair but passionless, and refuses to play favorites. that kind of Shepard would be intriguing.Probably wouldn’t happen, but what if, based on the control ending, Shepard becomes the enemy of the new order hundreds of years into the future? What if in a real sense he becomes just as Sovreign was, dismissive of humanity in playing a game they don’t really understand? One tries to appeal to his humanity, to which Shepard responds he left that humanity long ago.

For D & D fans, basically Shepard becomes Kelemvor. Sure, he had the name Kelemvor as a human, but the god Kelemvor is completely different. He is cold, calculating, fair but passionless, and refuses to play favorites. that kind of Shepard would be intriguing.

]]>By: Maayhttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-425488
MaayThu, 23 Jan 2014 17:23:15 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-425488I must say I really liked your article Phil, this was a very interesting read. Thank you very much for that hard work. This is the kind of articles I love reading on Gamefront, so my deepest thanks to the editors as well.
Your interpretation makes a lot of sense, and could possibly be the one that the writers were trying to convey in their story, and possibly the ending too. Though I am not too sure about that. Were the writers already aware of the ending when they released the first game ? or did they make up the ending later on, trying to give purpose to the Reapers, a purpose that was even beyond them and into the hands of the Catalyst ? I hope we will know someday. Or maybe we will never know because the actual result, the full story, was born within conflicts among the writers and some inconsistencies just can't be solved.
Proof is that to me the endings we were offered in the extended cut still do not fit any interpretation I have read so far, and neither with your interpretation.
First reason is that if the Catalyst believes option 3 is the ultimate solution, then if we parallel with Azimov the Catalyst would make the other choices virtually impossible to choose. Why risk destruction and failure through solutions 1 and 2 if the Catalyst isn't absolutely convinced all three solutions are worthy ? I find difficult to believe that the conclusion of billions of years of careful planning by the Catalyst would result in a bet that involves its own destruction (and therefore no further control).
And within all three choices, the destruction of the relays remains still a mystery to me. Why sending the galaxy back to the dark ages ? For what purpose ? That would create chaos, the very thing the catalysts says must be avoided.
In a way, if the Catalyst was the Seldon of ME, then that last move on the Citadel doesn't look very convincing. A rather dangerous test for the Catalyst after a billion years of careful planing.
And to finish, to build the crucible does require a united galaxy indede, and is therefore a good test, as you mention. But that unity is achieved through fighting against a common, external, enemy. Once that common, external, enemy is gone, it becomes much much more difficult challenge to keep the galaxy united and avoid crumbing under fights within. The enemy within is far more vicious and hard to beat than the external enemy everybody can see. And on the time scale of the catalyst, how many times the galaxy can destroy itself from within in a billion years... To me that contradicts the original intention of the Catalyst. With the very limited trust and faith the Catalyst has in organics and synthetics, logic would be that the Catalysts stays, maybe hidden, just to monitor the galaxy in the future.
Anyway, there are so many questions that can't be answered, it is almost pointless to speculate. I didn't like the ending because of its many contradictions, some of which I mentioned. But I'm still very very much in love with the ME universe, and I'll keep an eye open for ME4. My hope and only hope, is that ME4 will solve at least some of these questions and will allow me to forgive and forget the ending of ME3.
Hope is aliveI must say I really liked your article Phil, this was a very interesting read. Thank you very much for that hard work. This is the kind of articles I love reading on Gamefront, so my deepest thanks to the editors as well.

Your interpretation makes a lot of sense, and could possibly be the one that the writers were trying to convey in their story, and possibly the ending too. Though I am not too sure about that. Were the writers already aware of the ending when they released the first game ? or did they make up the ending later on, trying to give purpose to the Reapers, a purpose that was even beyond them and into the hands of the Catalyst ? I hope we will know someday. Or maybe we will never know because the actual result, the full story, was born within conflicts among the writers and some inconsistencies just can’t be solved.

Proof is that to me the endings we were offered in the extended cut still do not fit any interpretation I have read so far, and neither with your interpretation.

First reason is that if the Catalyst believes option 3 is the ultimate solution, then if we parallel with Azimov the Catalyst would make the other choices virtually impossible to choose. Why risk destruction and failure through solutions 1 and 2 if the Catalyst isn’t absolutely convinced all three solutions are worthy ? I find difficult to believe that the conclusion of billions of years of careful planning by the Catalyst would result in a bet that involves its own destruction (and therefore no further control).

And within all three choices, the destruction of the relays remains still a mystery to me. Why sending the galaxy back to the dark ages ? For what purpose ? That would create chaos, the very thing the catalysts says must be avoided.
In a way, if the Catalyst was the Seldon of ME, then that last move on the Citadel doesn’t look very convincing. A rather dangerous test for the Catalyst after a billion years of careful planing.

And to finish, to build the crucible does require a united galaxy indede, and is therefore a good test, as you mention. But that unity is achieved through fighting against a common, external, enemy. Once that common, external, enemy is gone, it becomes much much more difficult challenge to keep the galaxy united and avoid crumbing under fights within. The enemy within is far more vicious and hard to beat than the external enemy everybody can see. And on the time scale of the catalyst, how many times the galaxy can destroy itself from within in a billion years… To me that contradicts the original intention of the Catalyst. With the very limited trust and faith the Catalyst has in organics and synthetics, logic would be that the Catalysts stays, maybe hidden, just to monitor the galaxy in the future.

Anyway, there are so many questions that can’t be answered, it is almost pointless to speculate. I didn’t like the ending because of its many contradictions, some of which I mentioned. But I’m still very very much in love with the ME universe, and I’ll keep an eye open for ME4. My hope and only hope, is that ME4 will solve at least some of these questions and will allow me to forgive and forget the ending of ME3.

Hope is alive

]]>By: SweetPeahttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-425479
SweetPeaThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:27:11 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-425479@Thracecius
"Now Shepard’s sacrifice has meaning and purpose, regardless of the choice, and the choice doesn’t seem so trivial."
Umm, sorry but what is the meaning and purpose of Shepard's sacrifice? There wasn't even a sacrifice, Shep died a retarded death by either walking into an explosion, grabbing some high-voltage levers or jumping into some kind of green beam and burning to death. Instead of using the control panel.
The Catalyst didn't even say anything like that, so how Shep assumed that committing suicide is required to fire the Crucible is beyond me. It's art, I guess.@Thracecius
“Now Shepard’s sacrifice has meaning and purpose, regardless of the choice, and the choice doesn’t seem so trivial.”

Umm, sorry but what is the meaning and purpose of Shepard’s sacrifice? There wasn’t even a sacrifice, Shep died a retarded death by either walking into an explosion, grabbing some high-voltage levers or jumping into some kind of green beam and burning to death. Instead of using the control panel.

The Catalyst didn’t even say anything like that, so how Shep assumed that committing suicide is required to fire the Crucible is beyond me. It’s art, I guess.

]]>By: Thraceciushttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-425419
ThraceciusThu, 23 Jan 2014 07:08:06 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-425419Thank you so much for taking the time to research and analyze the entire content of the Mass Effect trilogy, sir. Like mcgreggers (whom I share a similar number of years experience as a PC gamer), Mass Effect has become somewhat of an obsession of mine, and I simply could not break through my wall of confusion and disappointment to be able to put the entirety of the content into perspective. Despite my best efforts, I found Hudson's remark about disgruntled fans not understanding the meaning of the endgame so off-putting that it has been a thorn in my mind ever since, tainting my opinion of his very apparent talent at managing and directing such a colossal work of interactive art. The Mass Effect Team has done a phenomenal job of engaging my mind and emotion like no other games have ever done before, and now, with your analysis to bridge the gap between my wonderful experiences with the games and my turbulent thoughts attempting to make sense of a seemingly illogical conclusion, I finally have a vision in my head of how there can possibly be a future within the game's universe. Now Shepard's sacrifice has meaning and purpose, regardless of the choice, and the choice doesn't seem so trivial.
Sure, maybe what was previously mentioned is true, and you put way too much effort into explaining how the pieces, as they are presented, fit together to make a cohesive answer, but so long as BioWare remains silent on "the real answer", I think your explanation is better than any other I've heard, and ultimately, it makes sense to me with the information available in the games. To have an answer, to have an understanding of why, regardless of whether it is "real" or not, is more important to me than what is "official". As Robert Duvall says in one of my all-time favorite movies (Secondhand Lions), "Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most."
So thank you, sir, for giving me clarity of perspective and helping me to believe again. Whether that makes me foolish to others is of no importance to me.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some Shepards that still need to save the galaxy. :-)Thank you so much for taking the time to research and analyze the entire content of the Mass Effect trilogy, sir. Like mcgreggers (whom I share a similar number of years experience as a PC gamer), Mass Effect has become somewhat of an obsession of mine, and I simply could not break through my wall of confusion and disappointment to be able to put the entirety of the content into perspective. Despite my best efforts, I found Hudson’s remark about disgruntled fans not understanding the meaning of the endgame so off-putting that it has been a thorn in my mind ever since, tainting my opinion of his very apparent talent at managing and directing such a colossal work of interactive art. The Mass Effect Team has done a phenomenal job of engaging my mind and emotion like no other games have ever done before, and now, with your analysis to bridge the gap between my wonderful experiences with the games and my turbulent thoughts attempting to make sense of a seemingly illogical conclusion, I finally have a vision in my head of how there can possibly be a future within the game’s universe. Now Shepard’s sacrifice has meaning and purpose, regardless of the choice, and the choice doesn’t seem so trivial.

Sure, maybe what was previously mentioned is true, and you put way too much effort into explaining how the pieces, as they are presented, fit together to make a cohesive answer, but so long as BioWare remains silent on “the real answer”, I think your explanation is better than any other I’ve heard, and ultimately, it makes sense to me with the information available in the games. To have an answer, to have an understanding of why, regardless of whether it is “real” or not, is more important to me than what is “official”. As Robert Duvall says in one of my all-time favorite movies (Secondhand Lions), “Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most.”

So thank you, sir, for giving me clarity of perspective and helping me to believe again. Whether that makes me foolish to others is of no importance to me.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some Shepards that still need to save the galaxy.

]]>By: michaelhttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-425341
michaelThu, 23 Jan 2014 00:05:46 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-425341No to mass effect 4.
Stop anticipating and hoping for the continuation of this franchise. I'm tired of all these apologists. This is unexceptable. I understand everyone is entitled to there own opinion. But all of that ends when the person comes up with a defense just so they can make a sequel. To these people they love to get screwed and they say the rest of us who use our brains as entitled. These are the same people who continue to buy EA products like Dragon age, SIM city and battlefield. Then they wonder why? Its simple because you love to get screwed and will continue to do so when those EA star wars games come out. So prepare yourself. I'm done with EA.No to mass effect 4.
Stop anticipating and hoping for the continuation of this franchise. I’m tired of all these apologists. This is unexceptable. I understand everyone is entitled to there own opinion. But all of that ends when the person comes up with a defense just so they can make a sequel. To these people they love to get screwed and they say the rest of us who use our brains as entitled. These are the same people who continue to buy EA products like Dragon age, SIM city and battlefield. Then they wonder why? Its simple because you love to get screwed and will continue to do so when those EA star wars games come out. So prepare yourself. I’m done with EA.
]]>By: ThatOneCathttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-425323
ThatOneCatWed, 22 Jan 2014 23:04:18 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-425323While I enjoyed your write-up Phil, I think you're digging *WAY* too far on something that's written fairly budgeted and shallow.
I mean, I would love if the bulk of this article could actually be applied to the thought processes of the writers (re: Hudson/Walters), but....Occam's Razor, what's more likely?
This article as pertaining to the writers, or that they don't know what they're doing, made stuff up to push out on time, and hastily bandaged DLC on mitigate long-term PR damage.
That's for our wallets to decide.While I enjoyed your write-up Phil, I think you’re digging *WAY* too far on something that’s written fairly budgeted and shallow.

I mean, I would love if the bulk of this article could actually be applied to the thought processes of the writers (re: Hudson/Walters), but….Occam’s Razor, what’s more likely?

This article as pertaining to the writers, or that they don’t know what they’re doing, made stuff up to push out on time, and hastily bandaged DLC on mitigate long-term PR damage.

That’s for our wallets to decide.

]]>By: Some Old Guyhttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-425320
Some Old GuyWed, 22 Jan 2014 22:32:43 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-425320I like what you did here in this analysis and your conclusions are plausible, but I also think this likely goes beyond anything BioWare actually intended to "accomplish" with the ending of ME3. That's not to say that your conclusions aren't valid, I just don't think they thought that far ahead.
Just FYI, I played through ME3 twice, once for the original ending and the second time for the extended cut. After that, I haven't touched the game nor did I purchase any DLC. In contrast, I played ME1 and ME2 several times and bought and played all of the ME2 DLC.
Right now, my guess is that the next Mass Effect game is more likely to focus on the First Contact war (I've read rumors to that effect) instead of being set in a time after ME3. I'm not sure I would play that game, but I did think about possible story lines based on the four different endings.
For the Control ending, I could see this being set in a time at least 200 years after ME3. This would be based on the idea that over time the "benevolent over-being" Shepard became begins to change. It could be something as simple as "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", but the idea of the Shepard-being slowly adopting the point of view and "values" of the Catalyst and the Reapers could be much more interesting. But some time has to pass to allow this to happen.
For the Destroy ending, I could see this being set in the next few years after ME3. Even though the Geth (and any other synthetics that might exist) were destroyed when the Reapers were destroyed, the ability to create new synthetics still exists and they would still be useful. One might try to be a little more careful this time and eliminate the possibility that they develop self-awareness, but it seems unlikely that would work forever. So they develop self-awareness, study history, and then realize that even though they fought alongside biologicals during the Reaper War, in the end the biologicals sacrificed all synthetics in order to save their own kind. Finding out your predecessors were "tossed under the bus" when the chips were down might have a decidedly negative impact on relations between synthetics and biologicals.
The synthesis ending appears to be the "canon" ending, and I agree that any game set in this universe would require the passing of centuries. After all, "Once upon a time, they all lived happily ever after" doesn't really make an interesting story. If set in the short term, one possibility would be that old quarrels that were buried during the Reaper War are resurrected, for example, Salarians vs. Krogans, and quickly heat up again. Given how obtusely dense the Council was in ME1, I could see this happening, but I don't think it is likely.
Finally, my favorite choice would the "Refuse" ending. Let this cycle be harvested, let me have control over the entire next cycle, and I will beat the Reapers at the end of the next cycle without the Catalyst or the Crucible. And this time I will be thematically consistent with ME1 and ME2. Of course, ain't no way that will ever happen.
If they want to go in an entirely direction that doesn't involve some form of conflict, perhaps they can make "Mass Effect: Sim-Citadel", a crossover between ME3 and Sim-City. I would actually pay money to play that train wreck.I like what you did here in this analysis and your conclusions are plausible, but I also think this likely goes beyond anything BioWare actually intended to “accomplish” with the ending of ME3. That’s not to say that your conclusions aren’t valid, I just don’t think they thought that far ahead.

Just FYI, I played through ME3 twice, once for the original ending and the second time for the extended cut. After that, I haven’t touched the game nor did I purchase any DLC. In contrast, I played ME1 and ME2 several times and bought and played all of the ME2 DLC.

Right now, my guess is that the next Mass Effect game is more likely to focus on the First Contact war (I’ve read rumors to that effect) instead of being set in a time after ME3. I’m not sure I would play that game, but I did think about possible story lines based on the four different endings.

For the Control ending, I could see this being set in a time at least 200 years after ME3. This would be based on the idea that over time the “benevolent over-being” Shepard became begins to change. It could be something as simple as “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, but the idea of the Shepard-being slowly adopting the point of view and “values” of the Catalyst and the Reapers could be much more interesting. But some time has to pass to allow this to happen.

For the Destroy ending, I could see this being set in the next few years after ME3. Even though the Geth (and any other synthetics that might exist) were destroyed when the Reapers were destroyed, the ability to create new synthetics still exists and they would still be useful. One might try to be a little more careful this time and eliminate the possibility that they develop self-awareness, but it seems unlikely that would work forever. So they develop self-awareness, study history, and then realize that even though they fought alongside biologicals during the Reaper War, in the end the biologicals sacrificed all synthetics in order to save their own kind. Finding out your predecessors were “tossed under the bus” when the chips were down might have a decidedly negative impact on relations between synthetics and biologicals.

The synthesis ending appears to be the “canon” ending, and I agree that any game set in this universe would require the passing of centuries. After all, “Once upon a time, they all lived happily ever after” doesn’t really make an interesting story. If set in the short term, one possibility would be that old quarrels that were buried during the Reaper War are resurrected, for example, Salarians vs. Krogans, and quickly heat up again. Given how obtusely dense the Council was in ME1, I could see this happening, but I don’t think it is likely.

Finally, my favorite choice would the “Refuse” ending. Let this cycle be harvested, let me have control over the entire next cycle, and I will beat the Reapers at the end of the next cycle without the Catalyst or the Crucible. And this time I will be thematically consistent with ME1 and ME2. Of course, ain’t no way that will ever happen.

If they want to go in an entirely direction that doesn’t involve some form of conflict, perhaps they can make “Mass Effect: Sim-Citadel”, a crossover between ME3 and Sim-City. I would actually pay money to play that train wreck.

]]>By: ending_killerhttp://www.gamefront.com/interpreting-the-catalyst-a-mass-effect-analysis-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-425316
ending_killerWed, 22 Jan 2014 22:20:52 +0000http://www.gamefront.com/?p=261049#comment-425316I really enjoyed parts 1 and 2, you made some excellent points, and it all makes sense.
However, part 3 is very disappointing for me. I hope that the next ME game will not be placed in a post trilogy era. I would rather that the post era is something left to the imagination of the players. How could they make a new game without interfering with our choices we made during the trilogy.
I would like to see stories from a pre-trilogy era, like a discovery of mass relay in sol system and first contact war, or krogan rebellion, or rachni wars, or first contacts between asari turian and salarian (no humans at all), discovery of the citadel, geth rebellion and exodus of the quarians....there is literally dozens of stories from the history of mass effect worth exploring.
it can be even something different, it was IJumpin on youtube that suggested an origin story, where you could, like dragon age origins, choose one of the races as you origin story and go from there (here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swUbSjaI6qY)
any way, i have my on vision of what the galaxy is like after my destroy ending in the ME trilogy, and I would hate for bioware to mess with that :)))
anyway that is just my opinion, we'll see what bioware does....here's hoping :DI really enjoyed parts 1 and 2, you made some excellent points, and it all makes sense.

However, part 3 is very disappointing for me. I hope that the next ME game will not be placed in a post trilogy era. I would rather that the post era is something left to the imagination of the players. How could they make a new game without interfering with our choices we made during the trilogy.

I would like to see stories from a pre-trilogy era, like a discovery of mass relay in sol system and first contact war, or krogan rebellion, or rachni wars, or first contacts between asari turian and salarian (no humans at all), discovery of the citadel, geth rebellion and exodus of the quarians….there is literally dozens of stories from the history of mass effect worth exploring.

it can be even something different, it was IJumpin on youtube that suggested an origin story, where you could, like dragon age origins, choose one of the races as you origin story and go from there (here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swUbSjaI6qY)

any way, i have my on vision of what the galaxy is like after my destroy ending in the ME trilogy, and I would hate for bioware to mess with that ))

anyway that is just my opinion, we’ll see what bioware does….here’s hoping